Arsenic-based life… or not?

I’m not sure what’s more interesting – that arsenic-based life may potentially exist, or the spectacle of its announcement (and, of course, the eventual fallout). As one who is excited about the prospect of a shadow biosphere on Earth and how it may relate to the possibility of life elsewhere in our solar system and galaxy, I want the science to stand at the forefront of discussion. But you gotta admit – human reaction to this story is equally worth the mention (and, perhaps unfortunately, is far more relevant with respect to how we progress scientifically as a species. Flying cars, anyone?).

As implied, my own reaction is one of amused fascination. The science I see when doing a term paper or collecting information for my undergrad thesis is so far removed from the public discourse that it’s actually quite enjoyable to see people grinding it out in a public arena.

Of course, there are the obvious questions: Does this event represent the sensationalizing of research findings, and if so, do events like this cheapen science as a whole? Do scientists and scientific instititions run the risk of alienating an already overly-cynical, non-specialist population if the research is shown to be false or invalid? Does specialist criticism in blog-form circumvent or negatively impact the peer review process? Do scientists have a responsibility to disseminate their findings to the general public, or conversely, preserve the rigid strictures of specialist debate?

My gut reaction to these questions on all counts is, “no” “maybe”; but I readily admit I am unable to evaulate that position in any meaningful way. What I can relate, however, is my own disappointment with the story overall as a function of the media structure that brought it to my attention in the first place. It reminds me of the recent skepticism surrounding Gliese 581 g, following the initial media frenzy about having a habitable planet in the near galactic neighbourhood (~20 light years away). You get stoked only to realize your excitement was premature (and whose fault is that?).

Are we developing a trend of rushing out big headlines before the actual research is ready? It’s one thing for scientists to bicker about controversial claims, as they understand the process and realize that uncertainty is a good thing, but it’s quite another for the general public. Yes, we in the western world follow the democratic process, but it’s also worth pointing out that the process doesn’t mitigate stupidity. I’d argue that this kind of messy, scientific discourse in the mainstream media creates the opportunity for it to be maligned and exploited by any manner of creationists, conspiracy theorists, or assorted kooks with money and political pull.

I don’t think it’s a good way to conduct the debate, and I don’t think it helps; especially when so many news outlets run stories of pure fiction about NASA finding extraterrestrial life.

2 comments

I’d say the internet certainly has changed science reporting and discourse, whether we want it to or not. Scientific discussions can happen much more openly now, and this has positives and negatives, such as the opportunity for anti-scientists to exploit genuine debate. I’m sure peer-review will dominate, at least in the short-term, but the internet, and particularly blogs certainly facilitate discussion.
It seems as though NASA failed to grasp this. It was odd to see them hold a press release to announce the paper, then immediately lock-down in the face of blog-led scientific debate.
As for scientific reporting in the mass media, I think its becoming a desperate position. Even supposedly reputable outlets (BBC, CNN etc) have awful science reporting. Maybe blogs are the answer to this?

I think blogs may be, given their recent proliferation! It’ll be interesting to see how the blog-peer review-popular reporting dynamic will even out in the mid-to-long term.

In the end I suppose I’m not too terribly concerned with bad reporting. I think I’d rather have the stories get out there to the lay-public than have them hidden behind the costly subscription medium. That way, the audience also has access to the resulting criticisms of the blogging community. This may mean an increase in skepticism of the general public, but it also reasserts scientific knowledge as fallible and ever-evolving.